Cases 71 - 80 of 1,586
David Wilson v. Jason Smoak, et al
as 22-13458
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DAVID BRADLEY WILSON
Defendant / Appellee:
JASON SMOAK, JAMES BRAZIER, SHARON KING and others
Dennis Christensen v. Reddish, et al
as 22-13485
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DENNIS CHRISTENSEN
Defendant / Appellee:
REDDISH, STARLING, C. UNDERHILL and others
Daker v. Dozier et al
as 6:2022cv00072
Plaintiff:
Waseem Daker
Defendant:
Gregory Dozier, Homer Bryson, Timothy Ward and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Christensen v. Bowden et al
as 3:2022cv00976
Plaintiff:
Dennis Christensen
Defendant:
T. Bowden, C. Underhill, Hayes and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Christensen v. Reddish et al
as 3:2022cv00962
Plaintiff:
Dennis Christensen
Defendant:
Reddish, B. Starling, C. Underhill and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
King v. Hebson et al
as 5:2022cv01109
Plaintiff:
Ronald Odell King
Defendant:
Jessica Jones Hebson, Danny Carry, Steven Marshall and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
King v. Alabama Department of Corrections
as 5:2022cv01108
Plaintiff:
Ronald Odell King
Defendant:
Alabama Department of Corrections
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Ridley v. Ward et al
as 1:2022cv03507
Plaintiff:
Edward Tyrone Ridley
Defendant:
Commissioner Timothy Ward, Warden Lawrence Wittington, Warden Ford Jackson Diagnostic and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Michael King v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al
as 22-12739
Petitioner / Appellant:
MICHAEL KING
Respondent / Appellee:
SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL
Eddie James King v. Wade W. Herring, III, et al
as 22-12774
Plaintiff / Appellant:
EDDIE JAMES KING
Defendant / Appellee:
WADE WILKES HERRING, III and ALISON L. CURRIE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
